FACTS · METHODOLOGY · SOURCES
Facts on the planned GTS allocation change
This page summarises figures and definitions from the background paper dated 14 September 2026. Where the paper draws conclusions or lacks school-specific data, that is labelled explicitly.
06.10.13pages
UPDATED STATEMENT
Research, school-inspection data and six demands
Our 13-page submission to the public hearing does not claim that GTS is simply “better” than GBS. It asks a different question: whether Hamburg should remove teacher-led learning time, structured support and the existing professional mix without a school-by-school impact assessment.
Key facts
SCHOOL SUPPORT
School support is also changing
For 2026/27 Hamburg is also changing the organisation of school support. Because school support is individual assistance while GTS allocation funds general all-day-school resources, the two issues are documented on separate facts pages.
School support factsGTS and GBS
GTS
The school itself organises the all-day programme with its own staff. Teachers, educators and honorarium staff work as a team; lessons, learning time and activities are integrated across the day.
72 of 198 state primary schools use this model.
GBS
An external youth welfare provider organises the afternoon in cooperation with the school. Morning lessons and afternoon care are organisationally separate.
126 of 198 state primary schools use this model.
Allocation formula
Current per calculated group
10 teacher hours/week
34.0% of an educator position
300 honorarium hours
Planned new formula
teacher component removed
62.4% of an educator position
separate honorarium allocation removed
Budget order of magnitude
Approximation; the compared populations are not perfectly identical in each year.
Social composition
According to the updated analysis, 48% of GTS schools with a known social index have social index 1 or 2. Among other Hamburg primary schools it is 18%. The analysis covers 82 GTS schools and 98 other primary schools for which a social index is available. These figures describe school composition, not the concrete impact on an individual school.
School example: Grundschule Poppenbüttel
The background paper lists 436 children, 20 classes, social index 5 and up to 19 calculated groups. At full participation: up to 190 teacher WAZ, up to 6.5 educator positions and up to 5,700 honorarium hours; from 2028/29 the displayed allocation shows 0 teacher WAZ and 0 honorarium hours, while the educator share rises to up to 11.8 positions.
School example: Ganztagsgrundschule Sternschanze
The background paper lists 523 children and social index 4. The school reports teacher hours for elective courses, learning time, lunch-time presence, support periods, enrichment and all-day coordination. This is one school example and must not be generalised.
Documented, assessed, open
Formula, dates, school count and budget magnitudes are tied to primary sources in the background paper.
Possible consequences are labelled as conclusions when they do not follow directly from budget figures.
The paper does not contain school-specific impact calculations for most schools.
OTHER SCHOOL TYPES
The budget package also affects Gymnasium schools
An open letter from Hamburg Gymnasium school leaders warns of effects on support programmes, gifted education, foreign languages, profile choices and the substitute-teacher reserve. The authority’s official information letters are a separate source.